NephroCAGE—German-Canadian Consortium on AI for Improved Kidney Transplantation Outcome: Protocol for an Algorithm Development and Validation Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Recent advances in hardware and software enabled the use of artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms for analysis of complex data in a wide range of daily-life use cases. We aim to explore the benefits of applying AI to a specific use case in transplant nephrology: risk prediction for severe posttransplant events. For the first time, we combine multinational real-world transplant data, which require specific legal and technical protection measures. Objective: The German-Canadian NephroCAGE consortium aims to develop and evaluate specific processes, software tools, and methods to (1) combine transplant data of more than 8000 cases over the past decades from leading transplant centers in Germany and Canada, (2) implement specific measures to protect sensitive transplant data, and (3) use multinational data as a foundation for developing high-quality prognostic AI models. Methods: To protect sensitive transplant data addressing the first and second objectives, we aim to implement a decentralized NephroCAGE federated learning infrastructure upon a private blockchain. Our NephroCAGE federated learning infrastructure enables a switch of paradigms: instead of pooling sensitive data into a central database for analysis, it enables the transfer of clinical prediction models (CPMs) to clinical sites for local data analyses. Thus, sensitive transplant data reside protected in their original sites while the comparable small algorithms are exchanged instead. For our third objective, we will compare the performance of selected AI algorithms, for example, random forest and extreme gradient boosting, as foundation for CPMs to predict severe short- and long-term posttransplant risks, for example, graft failure or mortality. The CPMs will be trained on donor and recipient data from retrospective cohorts of kidney transplant patients. Results: We have received initial funding for NephroCAGE in February 2021. All clinical partners have applied for and received ethics approval as of 2022. The process of exploration of clinical transplant database for variable extraction has started at all the centers in 2022. In total, 8120 patient records have been retrieved as of August 2023. The development and validation of CPMs is ongoing as of 2023. Conclusions: For the first time, we will (1) combine kidney transplant data from nephrology centers in Germany and Canada, (2) implement federated learning as a foundation to use such real-world transplant data as a basis for the training of CPMs in a privacy-preserving way, and (3) develop a learning software system to investigate population specifics, for example, to understand population heterogeneity, treatment specificities, and individual impact on selected posttransplant outcomes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".